User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging: Difference between revisions

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, TheTimesAreAChanging, for recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to articles on international politics, and for persevering in spite of earlier friction with some of the community's policies and guidelines. Keep up the good work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the relevant portion of FeuerHerd (2005/2006) the 321st minute, or is that the length of the work? Please cite the time range when death totals are discussed. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean citation 9: "Aaron Ulrich (editor); Edward FeuerHerd (producer and director) (2005 & 2006) (Box set, Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Full Screen, NTSC, Dolby, Vision Software). Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 (Documentary). Koch Vision. Event occurs at 321 minutes. ISBN 1-4172-2920-9." This is used for the estimate of 1.1 million North Vietnamese military deaths, as well as Kingdom of Thailand military deaths. It sounds like it occurs at the 321st minute. But I didn't add this source to the article. So I wouldn't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're braver than me. :) why must all these types of articles have a united states involvement section? Lol - which style guide makes them apparently mandatory? Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad I could help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article except that section, and it's style (and length!) had long bothered me, but I did not know how to go about fixing it, apart from just removing it which would not have stuck. Your changes are just about perfect. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merbabu - btw interesting all this stuff about the usa - I am sure somewhere in the recesses of my long filed away secondary sources in my storage boxes (all pre-internet) - the british embassy was a up to its eyeballs and may have been feeding the us embassy or operatives with material... SatuSuro 09:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people always prefer to emphasise the real or imagined US role in things, and not the role of other states. You would think that the US (and not the USSR) sold Saddam most of his weapons in the war with Iran, or that the US gave more aid to the junta in Argentina than France, or that the CIA overthrew Mossadegh all by its lonesome (and not at the request of the British). I don't doubt that the UK was involved in Indonesia to some extent, but I don't have the sources to back that up.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not repeated on the Indonesian article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His restores without consensus are not acceptable. But I don't know the best way to respond. His actions and comments don't suggest he will respond to or respect rational or standard Wikipedia procedures. You will also see from his contribs that he has received some bad advice from another editor. --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - it appears to me that the three of you might have some history. If that is so, and as I already said on the talk page, it would be nice if these battles could be kept off this page and that we focus on the specific issues. I and others really don't care about the other troubles you may have had. just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk)|

I'll discuss his edits with him. I'll handle it. I don't want an edit war. Thanks for the tip about the bad advice he got.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please don't split other editor's comments up like this. It makes it really hard for a third person (like me!) to understand who's saying what.

Thanks for your work. will be monitoring what happens. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I'll have to watch that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of your changes just got reverted. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted it back, because he's so clearly, blatantly in the wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful: Scroll down to slow revert]--Merbabu (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Horhey420 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*grabs popcorn* --Merbabu (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another joke? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The archive of the section on ANI opened by Horhey can be found here. For your reference. --Merbabu (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(as for the recent blocking, IMO probably best if we let the admins carry most of that load - let's just chip in if really required. :-) Otherwise, the risk is a perception that things are murky. And perceptions are what counts unforunately. cheers) --Merbabu (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to worry about. I wasn't responsible for his being blocked; he was blocked before I could consult an admin. Nick-D noticed that virtually everything he added violated copyright. It's pretty clear cut.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure TheTimesAreAChanging, I will do my best to communicate, although I haven't gotten the impression that this editor is an attentive listener. This sure is a frustrating edit war, eh? Best, CCS81 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. Thanks again for your help.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template was for the snarky "if you can read" comment in your edit summary. Because I used a canned template, it referred to removing your comments, which of course I can't do on an edit summary. Is this clearer now? Mesconsing (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it says that his government ended in 1968 so I always get confused :P And didn't the Ba'athist coup in 1963 fail? I always thought the Ba'athist regime came in to power in 1968. 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the coup succeeded in 1963--but there were two coups that year! The Ramadan Revolution split power between Abdul Rahman Arif and Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr; Arif purged the Ba'ath from the government in the November 1963 Iraqi coup d'état. The Ba'ath did not have the Presidency until 1968. However, the Ba'ath was the dominant faction in Qasim's cabinet, and had significant power from 1959 on.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Qasim's government ended in 1963, I thought it was 1968. And the reason why I added the Pre-Ba'athist flag to the History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule was becuase Qasim's government was the regime before the Ba'athist Republic, so that's why I added Qasim's flag in the top right corner link, to represent the previous Iraqi government before the Ba'athist Republic of Iraq which was Qasim's

And with regards to the Totalitarian debate, I must insist that Ba'athist Iraq was Totalitarian in nature and was a Totalitarian Dictatorship as control was vested in one man which had a centrally controlled government that required complete subservience to the state and leader. Certainly it was a Dictatorship in some respect. I'm not saying Ba'athist Iraq's government was Totalitarianism which makes no sense, but it was a Totalitarian Dictatorship, of which I found referenced material to back up my claim. I just would like you to consider it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam's Iraq was unquestionably totalitarian. But you should discuss your changes on the talk page. Do any other articles list "totalitarian government" under "government type"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, under "Government" on the Wikipedia article, it's listed as a form of government, as is a Constitutional republic or a Constitutional monarchy. Nazi Germany for example lists it's form of government as a Totalitarian Dictatorship, and since I've seen countries with a Constitutional republic or monarchy I though there would be nothing wrong with it.

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument. I restored it for now.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D

183.492.365.I98 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, there's an ongoing edit war happening on the Authoritarianism article. Currently the user Zeraful and Cresix have been reverting all 3 of my edits on that article, for reasons that are not sufficiently justifiable and are totally senseless. The user Zeraful deleted some content critical of the Vietnamese gov't, like of how Hanoi blocked Facebook, how Vietnam is on the Reporters Without Borders "Enemies of the Internet" blacklist and how the Vietnamese government suppresses protests in the country like in 2011, in a paragraph in the article that are true and had proper and sufficient citations with sources to credible international news website articleslike Forbes and The Economist. Then, an ip user tried to reinstate those deleted items and added additional content. That ip's edits were reverted by Crecix (who used twinkle) with no reason provided. After that, after seeing what's going on in the article, I came in and reinstated the article version of that ip user, after checking the changes in content, and I saw nothing wrong with the change in content by that ip and nothing wrong with the sources they provided. I added an additional source to one of the deleted items as well, from the DART Center website from Columbia University. Then, my edits were reverted by Zeraful and Crecix, claiming that "sources are needed to back [the deleted content] up", and "verification of sources failed", even though the items in dispute do have sufficient and credible sources (you can check the sources for yourself as well). Can you please help in trying to resolve this issue? I would greatly appreciate your efforts in trying to find a resolution to this. As well on a side note, the user Zeraful has a chronic problem of blanking out content, that are factual and recognized by academics, that usually have sources to back them up, that are critical or exposing anything negative of the Vietnamese communist govt, and has done this in numerous articles in the past, like on the North Vietnam article, and imparting pro-communist POV statements in encyclopeadic articles, with no or invalid and unacceptable sources. Zeraful also engages in "wording wars", trying to change words used in articles to make articles sound less critical of the Vietnamese regime, often changing things to the point that sentences are grammatically incorrect.Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps. I'm sorry for not responding to your compromise edit in the Battle of Khe Sanh article, because i was just so frustrated of the comments and responses made by, again, Zeraful, about Vietnam War history, comments that are historically incorrect, and in denial of some things that happened during and after the war, but nonetheless i agree with your compromise edit there and appreciate your efforts in resolving the edit war there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you as soon as I get a chance. I'm absolutely amazed by how flagrantly Zeraful has violated Wikipedia policy on that page, from euphemism to synthesis to original research to edit warring to personal attacks. More broadly, the whole paragraph has serious grammar problems and needs a rewrite.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheTimesAreAChanging for making a compromised edit for that paragraph. It was excellent and addressed almost all of my concerns on there. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I just hope that Zeraful doesn't start edit warring again. He doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a photo of the Hue Massacre in the "Specific Incidents" section. Since there's already a photo there of My Lai, it's important to also add a photo of the Hue Massacre, since Hue was the deadliest massacre committed by any party in the entire war, with a death toll of ~3000 - 6000, 10 to 20x more than My Lai. Hue is also one of the lesser known massacres in the war, far more unknown to the public than My Lai, (thank you foreign media for your "balanced and neutral news coverage"), even though far many more people died there, and it deserves to be more prominently displayed in order to attract more awareness of that tragedy. As well, by only displaying a photo of My Lai there, it implies that the Americans were the main ones who engaged in the killing of civilians, even though the communists were also very active in the slaughtering of civilians themselves. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to tell me, or explain your motivations, although I appreciate that you took the time to do so. I'm actually glad you added the photo. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. For the article about history in general, let's try to shorten the part about the 20th century, not to expand them because we already have specific articles about them. Waorca (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't "have" to do anything.
• The poorly sourced previous revision was inaccurate, at least with regard to war casualties. I mostly added sources or revised existing text; the net increase was only a couple of sentences.
• I'm not sure what you told the IP that you didn't tell me directly.
• You say that the 20th century is given disproportionate coverage, but that may be because it was a relatively significant part of Vietnam's history, or because the other centuries need expansion. I was only improving text related to highly relevant topics that were already considered important enough to cover.
• I do not intend to add more.
• Do you want me to trim the text I added (when I'm unblocked)? Is there anything in particular you want to see cut? We cannot go back to the old version.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's right, please do so. For the section about the Nguyen Dynasty and afterward, please summarize them and put in other main articles such as Nguyen Dynasty, First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Casualties of the Vietnam, and History of Vietnam since 1945. IMO, they make the 20th century so significance just because it just happened recently in the previous century. I linked to the talk page of IP because I'm lazy to rewrite those words. See also History of East Timor and history of Malaysia, guess what, I read those articles and think this is annoying when the contents about the 20th century cover half of all contents in each article. Doesn't matter how important a period is, I prefer all details about all periods have to equal in length. Cheer. Waorca (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot help with all that. I'll just trim what I added.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there any way I can contact you privately?? I'm really busy for the next month, or longer, so my sessions here would be short and intermittent, I'm not like the griffon who has no work/commitments that she has to tend to in her life... Communists are always like this, they know history and politics, and society, are against them, so they do whatever they can to portray their POV and ONLY their POV, censoring out /suppressing anything critical of them, and funny how they accuse others of POV. Chien cong san!!! Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be civil: Zrdragon probably isn't "demonic". Unfortunately, while I was happy to work with him when he was still being constructive, at this point his pathological edit warring and hostility towards discussion has me baffled! I'd rather not post my email address, unless it's really neccessary. In any case, please do not attack him in such strong terms because that only make him seem more reasonable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. PBut can you please demand for an indefinte block, as Floquenbeam did warn Zrdragon that the next time she edit wars, they'll be an indef block, period. This is very unacceptable, and her presence doesn't help in building an encyclopedia, but rather turn an encyclopedia into some POV blog site. I'm not going to let this griffon drag me down to trouble like she did before. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the complaint to ANI, but there has been no response. One editor did state that both User:Stumink and Zrdragon should be given an "equal block", but no admin has acted. While his behavior does merit another block--if not for a week, then at least a day or two--I don't think he's done enough to merit an indefinite block yet. Of course, I don't expect that he will ever change his ways....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging! Thanks for your anti-vandalistic revert on the article History of the United States where IP editor User:68.185.245.210 both deleted a portion and vandalized it. Unfortunately, you did not warn the IP editor on their talk page, which is standard operating procedure that allows us to judge his further efforts, should they be vandalism. I have gone ahead and issued them a warning. Please make a note on the talk pages of suspected or undeniable vandals that their edit was reverted by you, and why. It really helps down the road if they continue in their ways, and allows for their blocking when they persist. Thanks, and if you want to reply, I will watch this page. Thanks again for helping to protect the encylopedia, Jusdafax 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know I need to remember to do that!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. By the way, a vandal-only account like this IP can and should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. My report on the vandal just now led to a one-week block, which means if they resume their ways that the block will be taken into consideration of a longer or indef block. My best wishes to you, and happy editing! Jusdafax 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, is the museum a propaganda museum or not? I know this is random, but I would like to know what other editors conclude about this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it certainly sounds like it from the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your response. I was wondering if other people see and say this too, or i'm the only one saying this... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a matter of what any editor happens to think; it's a matter of what the reliable sources have to say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely true, the sources on that article, and from other sources i've seen, and even the, unreliable, posts from travellers on travel sites explicitly said that the museum is a propaganda and very biased museum, but a user keeps objecting to it being mentioned and calls it "POV", even though the reliable sources used said explicitly as such, atop of my experience. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, however, that you claimed Tijfo agreed with you in your edit summary; whereas he simply did not disagree. In the past, you argued there was a "consensus" that Ho Chi Minh was a "Stalinist", but this "consensus" consisted only of your own comments on the talk page and the lack of a rebuttal. I would advise you not to so misrepresent other editors' positions in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I thought disagreement would be shown by a reply indicating their objection, and no replying implied agreement... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Cold War#Second Cold War#Soviet war in Afghanistan resumed here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. Your proposed version is perfect. Cheers!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think? --JTBX (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean all three?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, theres one with third party candidates tommorow moderated by larry king. --JTBX (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter Schiff provided the most incisive commentary. Schiff spoke about the second debate, but much of what he said can be applied to all three.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I always knew you were a righ....nah I'm just kidding. Well theres a lot to say about Peter Schiff but sure, in the criticism of the debate he's right in that they are two sides of the same coin, which is generally the criticism everyone agrees across the spectrum. He's also right in his criticism, from a free market point of view, of the protectionism of the parties, making them anti-free market. But again theres a lot to say about all this. Cya man. --JTBX (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging,

I had left earlier comments under the Talk section of the Latin America section, you've most likely already seen.

I changed the last sentence in that section as my understanding of the coup is that there was widespread economic, political, and social unrest. Much of it was precipitated by the US covert influence. I added a bit more supporting material on that on the Talk Page there.

My view is that the coup was primarily caused by the US covert interventions and that perceptions at the time were skewed by lack of knowledge as to what was going on. Schneider would not have been removed without that interference, and there would have been no coup. Black propaganda also targeted the military.

If I understand your view, it appears to be that the Chilean Congress wanted a coup and that Pinochet provided such. Can you clarify, and point me to sources that substantiate that point of view?

Thanks, very much. I think the Nixon Latin America section is much improved by our edits. Having different points of view can actually force us to refine our edits to precisely accord with the facts, and provide interesting discussion, too.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "Schneider would not have been removed without [US] interference", because US arms or agents did not kill him, and Viaux had been discouraged from launching any attack. But even if the US did provide the arms that were used, the right-wing extremists had already attacked Schneider twice before, and there's no reason to think they would have been unwilling to do so again without American encouragement. Moreover, Schneider's removal may have been a necessary precondition for a coup, but it was clearly not sufficient to cause one; the whole nation rallied behind Allende in 1970. I'm skeptical of any claim that the US or CIA is particularly competent or capable of "creating" vast dysfunction in foreign nations with a few million dollars; many CIA operations have been complete failures or only succeeded through luck, and the CIA never keeps anything secret. The incredible inflation, destruction of the economy, and conflict between Allende and the Congress caused the coup. I already linked to the Chamber of Deputies declaration. Regarding the economy, as I wrote here: "Allende rightfully boasted that the Chilean military received several times more aid from the US under his socialist regime than it had in the years prior. The US continued humanitarian aid and never invoked the Hickenlooper Amendment; Chile's default alone was an effective transfer of resources greater by many orders of magnitude than that tendered to the Frei administration. The role played by US policy in creating Chile's economic crisis was minor--even if the net affect was negative (although certain US officials might prefer to believe in their own omnipotence). The US did try to hurt Allende at the IMF, but Chile still got $100 million in loans." Anyway, sources that I would recommend include Mark Falcoff's Modern Chile: 1970-1989 and "The Persistence of a Myth: Chile in the Eye of the Cold War Hurricane" by Joaquin Fermandois in World Affairs. But the truth is, Pinochet did not "provide" the coup (although he took credit for it in his memoirs). Pinochet was appointed by Allende because he was a military leader unlikely to support a coup; Pinochet was, in some ways, a progressive. Six hours before the coup, the rebel officers informed Pinochet that the coup was rolling. They gave Pinochet a piece of paper to sign ordering the army to support the coup, and told him that if he failed to sign it, this would "undermine the unity and discipline of the armed forces", which sounds a lot like "sign or die". Pinochet signed, then took off. Neither side could find him or contact him. They found him after the coup playing with his grandchildren and hauled him off to the bloodstained and still smoking presidential palace.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my mistaken edit of Democratic Kampuchea. While analysing the contribution history of User:90.191.206.10 (who I suspect of strong political WP:Bias), I erroneously restored an earlier version of the article. Thanks for your prompt revert. kashmiri 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, thanks for your attention at Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. I think you have have misunderstood my most recent edit, tagged as part of the Third World Traveler cleanup project. The issue with Third World Traveler, which Bob Rayner identified, is that it may quote books too extensively and infringe on their copyright. Thus, the goal is to cleanse citations of the offending Third World Traveler URLs but preserve the reference so that readers know where the information is coming from. At Allegations of CIA drug trafficking I simply restored a reference to William Blum's Killing Hope, which seems to be well-respected in its field. groupuscule (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added two "external links" to TWT, and the material in question was already cited. Moreover, it's not clear to me that 9/11 truther Blum's collection of conspiracy theories is particularly well-regarded or notable, although I really wouldn't know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, mea culpa. I didn't mean to undo that part of Bob's edit! I'll take those links out. Regarding conspiracy theories, I'm afraid this is simply the nature of the beast when it comes to the history of the CIA—by design, a secretive organization. William Blum is a relatively credible author in this field. He definitely has biases, as do many who write on the topic, but is still a good source for factual information. groupuscule (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for coming here to discuss the matter, for correcting your mistake, and for always being pleasant and polite. Have a good one!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: 23:08, 4 December 2012‎ TheTimesAreAChanging (Undid revision 526420443 by Konullu (talk) Unencylopedic section with no sources that actually deny the genocide.)

To inform: Not only did "Konullu" not provide any sources denying the genocide, but the references to Cardashian's book, "Should America Accept Mandate For Armenia?" were bogus. There is nothing on the pages indicated as sources in Cardashian's book that has anything to do with the text of Konullu's edit. And even if Cardashian said what Konullu quotes him as saying elsewhere, it is completely irrelevant and inappropriate for use in the article. For these reasons, your removing the edit was more than warranted. Diranakir (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge you to choose your words wisely, especially if you erroneously fault an editor for a mistake that you just committed. You can find a recent discussion about the numbers in question here. Malljaja (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Your source says perhaps 40 million total victims, including the Holocaust--You've doubled the number erroneously.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, your comments are rather puerile and uncivil. Perhaps you thrive on such conflict and use bluster to incite it, but in the long run it's not going to do you much good, at least not here on WP. Take the time to read the whole entry, especially the legacy section before making blanket statements. Note that the wording that you keep wanting to change is the result of earlier extended discussion and based on sourced information—I did not "double" any numbers because I was not immediately involved in these earlier discussions nor have I written the section in question. I merely want to make sure that the entry isn't damaged by fly-by-editors who have little insight into the topic and little interest in educating themselves. Malljaja (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "earlier extended discussion"? Why didn't you produce it the first time?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did—see end of my first comment: "You can find a recent discussion about the numbers in question here." The link at the end points to the most recent discussion on the topic of total casualties and what the sources are that support these numbers. Malljaja (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't support 61 to 81 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "it"—the discussion there or the sources that were discussed? From your comments, it seems to me that you're only making a very superficial effort of trying to dispute earlier content. If this is your best foot forward, it is completely unconvincing, or perhaps you're just unable to do better. The relevant entry puts the number of total WWII deaths at 62,171,600–78,041,700. Now, it's your good right to dispute these numbers or their attribution to different war theatres (preferably on the talk page); however, you will need to provide sources to do so. To change the numbers in the lead from a specific range (consistent with the main body of the article) to the vague "tens of millions" is very a very poor contribution indeed. Malljaja (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion about the numbers used in the lead. It never happened. The discussion you linked to was a red herring.

There was discussion about the legacy section, which states: "The Nazi regime was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians were killed in the European theater of World War II." That's only 50 million, including the Holocaust, and not all of those were entirely the responsibility of Hitler. (Indeed, the numbers may overlap a bit because Rummel is giving separate estimates of war-dead and of Nazi democide.) The lead should not contradict that section by double-counting the Holocaust and suggesting a much higher toll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion I pointed out to you—as I made clear above—is the most recent one I am aware of. There are earlier ones, which you can pull from the archives. Again, if you see the need for revision, you should do so by opening up a discussion on the talk page rather than replacing numbers with vague statements on the fly, peppered with flippant edit summaries. Rummel is not the only authority on the topic, so his estimates need to be balanced against those of others. It's really basic WP stuff that I need to explain to you here, which I'd be happy to do were it not for my impression that you do not really care what others views are. Malljaja (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you don't really have any idea how these inflated numbers got in the lead. It's not a matter of going back in time--further back than the discussion you mentioned, deep into the talk archives where serious evidence was presented--but of going forward. Until September 8, 2012 all the article said was: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivsted policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews." On that day, with no discussion and no sources, a single Wikipedia editor added these numbers based on his own misreading of a different Wikipedia article. Most biographies of tyrants avoid detailed analysis of the death toll caused by their policies in the lead. I didn't think it neccessary to repeat the text of the legacy section.

Whether these numbers are inflated has not been settled—so far you're leaning on Rummel's estimates, but he's not the only authority out there. Again, I do not have an issue with revised numbers, I have an issue with your replacing a number estimate, which had been established in prior discussions with a vague off-the-cuff phrase and a poor edit summary. Malljaja (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of higher estimates than Rummel's--estimates which may exceed 80 million or more--please provide them. No source or consensus or discussion supporting these made-up numbers currently exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above; also, there has been/is extended discussion that has been a lot more civil and productive than what you have displayed so far. Malljaja (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheTimesAreAChanging, can you please take a look at the long blurb that contravagatas has reinstated in the U.S.-caused casualties section and share your ideas on whether it hould be kept or not? Because from my position, many things that are included in there are speculations (like the part about who knows how many VC/NVN prisoners were tortured by US troops), and are laden with communist-sympathizing POV overtones. The part about the supposed massacre of 50 or so VC was also troubling, considering that the VC themselves also committed massacres that size, and larger, on ARVN troops and on South Vietnamese civilians many times through their terrorist attacks and so on throughout the war, and yet little attention is given each of those individual incidents. Funny how there's no mention of NVN torture, killings and abuse of ARVN and U.S. POWs in their prisons, like in the Hanoi Hilton and other jungle labor camps, from contravagatas. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greiner is a reputable source?

• He has Marxist leanings, he's part ofthe Center for Marxist Peace Research since 1987.

• He's a university prof at the U. of Hamburg, but so is the controversial Noam Chomsky at MIT...

• Published a few books on the US in the Cold War

Even if he is a Marxist, I'm sure he qualifies as a reliable source, but the specific incidents mentioned belong in the "Specific Incidents" list.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing important information. You need to read that entire abstract and get a pretty good idea of the events and then review my edits carefully. Your version starts "The movement originates from Afghan refugees living in northern Pakistan". What the hell does that suppose to mean? Helpless Afghan refugees who don't even have food to eat and have to rely on UNHCR all of a suddent became Taliban government? Wikipedia is suppose to go more into details, something Britannica doesn't do.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are based on original research. There are no reliable sources that maintain the US "created" the Taliban or even supported the Afghan Arabs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching for users that may be interested in contributing to a new article titled Presidency of Richard Nixon. Would you be interested in contributing? It will be placed into a sandbox until February 9, 2013. Afterwards, a section template will be placed in the biographical article Richard Nixon leading to the new presidency article. Mitchumch (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably end up making some additions to the article at some point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheTimesAreAChanging, I added a section on the Kissinger Talk page discussing the edits we are making. Please see there and add any comments you would like to. Thanks. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until I've run through the appeals process before undoing my edits. If all appeals fail, then I'll leave all the current material in place, even though it was inaccurate without the edits.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TimesAChanging, i reverted some edits by MigVN to a previous version, because some of his changes made no sense, and that Vietnamese language ref is unacceptable. For example, his change stating that "Internal Hanoi government figures record that 172,000 North Vietnamese signed in "enemy of the people" during the land reform campaign" made no sense, has incomprehensible broken English, and sounded like a desperate attempt at inserting POV. And, the source he put in stating that "Lịch sử kinh tế Việt Nam (tập hai): Địa chủ cường hào gian ác: 26.453 người. Địa chủ thường: 82.777 người. Địa chủ kháng chiến: 586 người. Phú nông : 62.192 người. Tổng cộng: 172.008 người" translates as: "Economic History of Viet Nam (part 2): Evil landlords: 26453 people. Normal landlords: 82777 people. Antirevolutionary/Resistive landlords 586 people. Rich farmers: 62192 people. Total: 172008 people". This whole ref didnt properly refer to a proper source, e.g. author, publisher, place of publication, year, and i'm not so trusting of this source based on the way its given, and it's tone. Nguyen1310 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it refers to The History of the Vietnamese Economy, Vol. 2, edited by Dang Phong of the Institute of Economy, Vietnamese Institute of Social Sciences, and published in 2005.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I lashed out at you there bro, I didn't know sockpuppet was established wikipedia jargon until just now. I thought you were just referring to me by some very odd insult. I assume you edited because you refuse to acknowledge US support for Iraq, not because of the Soviet Union or France. The United States did "encourage" Egypt to give a load of its Soviet tanks to Iraq, it also encouraged Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to fund Iraq so it could buy weapons from other countries (i.e. Soviet Union, France). I can't remember where I read this, but I read the United States would clandestinely buy weapons from Eastern bloc states and give it to Iraq. Of course you probably will refuse to acknowledge this plus I don't know exactly how much weapons (by weapons I meant armor and planes, more direct stuff) the US gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immykant (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not standard policy to list countries that sell arms as belligerents.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your edit at Quadrant magazine - but it was well known it received funding for pro-usa stance in the past, not sure where the refs would be though... it was long time common knowledge in Australia that it was a 'front' for US interests and policy and its propensity for espousing conservative political line. sats 02:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA's connection to the Congress for Cultural Freedom was not public knowledge when Quadrant was founded in 1956. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the Quadrant staff was aware of the CIA's role, much less intentionally slanting their work to suit the CIA's agenda. Quadrant does not deny either its conservative position or its past support from the CCF, but the uncited claim that it was part of an anti-communist "culture war" struck me as excessive. I'm also not convinced that the magazine was simply a "front" for US propaganda; scholars like John Kenneth Galbraith received CCF funding without appearing to act as CIA vassals. Encounter certainly published work more substantial than propaganda. The CIA invested in anti-communist publications, but this does not mean that the publications had no autonomy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I can see all that as relevant, and your edit was correct - but at some stage if I find a good ref for the CCF funding and Quadrant - at some stage, I would consider adding that in - but deifinitely not in the info box which you edited - cheers sats 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, thanks for fixing this! How embarassing! KConWiki (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TimesAChanging, with your much longer experience with editorship and Wikipedia editing policies, do you believe that this photo should be added or kept out of the article? This IP user [[2]] kept insisting that the Saigon Puppet-U.S. Imperialist photo be added in the Relationship with the US section of the S Vietnam article. I personally object to the addition of this photo, because it's added to put a personal message that VNCH (S Vietnam) was a puppet of the U.S. and that the U.S. is an imperialist, which is blatantly POV and neglects the fact that S Vietnam was fully independent of the US, only that the US had considerable say on certain VNCH political/military matters. This is a new IP editor from Hanoi. Also, when i explained the rationale behind the photo's removal, indirectly discussing the POV and distortive nature of the photo, the ip said that "I [alone] think that", and somehow the conclusion of most historians saying that VNCH was independent but under US influence must yield to what some random, non-academic protesters think. Also, i'm getting increasingly frustrated with the number of pro-communist, paid online propagandaists (chuyen gia but chien), of which i suspect are paid by Hanoi, to delete anything critical of the Vietnamese communists, or downplay/extort it, and push their position and opinions on here. BBC and Nguoi Viet news has confirmed that these online propagandaists exist [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] . Even the regime admits it [[6]]. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. For a relatively short article about a former country, I would say showing photos from anti-war rallies is probably undue. BTW, not all communist apologists are paid for their work. The thought of tens of thousands of summary executions, hundreds of thousands killed in concentration camps or drowned trying to escape, and millions enslaved in a vast gulag for as long as`17 years probably makes anti-war Leftists feel uncomfortable. (Just as the thought of 1,386,734 Cambodians executed and 800,000 more starved to death by the Khmer Rouge--reducing the expected 1979 population from 8.4 to 6.2 million--must have made Tip O'Neil uncomfortable--given his famous remark that "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier.") It would have been much easier for them to feel self-righteous and indignant about the U.S. role in Indochina if the U.S. had won. Apologetics for tyranny, mass murder, and slavery are now the only way to retain their pride and prejudice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a discussion on Historiography of the Cold War and a recent section entitled 'Effects of the Cold War on the American Population', in which you might be interested, on the talk page here. NauticaShades 13:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Adolph Hitler".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] A cheeseburger for you! For updating content on the Korea War article may I present to you this cheeseburger. May it fuel you in your continued editing of Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] And I give you one more (in text) for your revertings in the article about Pinochet. You seems to do a great job! Best regards, Adville (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Stalin my hero thanks for the laugh you right wing twit, and FYI I rewrote the Stalin lead multiple times to include his oppression. --JTBX (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] You should try this! This chili sauce is really good and you should try it some time. I've been using this for 2 decades now a topping, dipping sauce and condiment in soups and noodles. It's not just spicy (at the right level, not overly spicy like in western hot sauce), it also has a really nice aroma to it. Try the one with garlic with twist-on green lid. File:Sriracha "Rooster Sauce".jpg {{{info}}} Well, thank you for the suggestion! I'll certainly consider it. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Support from the UK Hello TheTimesAreAChanging. You removed this edit: [7] saying "Pilger's work on Cambodia has been so thoroughly discredited he had to pay libel damages for making this claim. You would need a historian of Cambodia to even consider adding this claim to this biography." The libel claim was specifically taken by two individual soldiers who were interviewed in a documentary. Those individuals said they hadnt trained the Khmer Rouge. Other SAS soldiers did. It is widely reported that the UK provided military support for the Khmer Rouge. Here is the UK government admitting this support in Parliament [8]. I am curious to know why you think these reports are wrong or discredited? ... Seabhcan 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] I see no "UK government admission" in the transcript of that Parliament debate; to the contrary, your source makes clear that the "official position" of the UK government was that it was training the non-communist forces of Son Sann and Price Sihanouk. (On the extensive fighting between the non-communists and the Khmer Rouge, see Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.) Perhaps some aid did fall into the hands of the KR, but Pilger is not a good source for such a claim, given his "very substantial" libel damages and hard-left POV. Recent discussion has concluded that there is no credible evidence of any American support for the KR; perhaps that is not the case with the UK, but the sources seem scarcely more reliable. Even if UK aid benefited the KR, we would still need to establish that that was the intention of UK policymakers, and it's difficult to imagine why it would have been.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] The original story comes from the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Janes Defense - neither are 'left wing' by any measure. [9] If you read the press coverage of Thatcher's death, most UK media mention the military support given to the Khmer Rouge - it is not a disputed fact. ... Seabhcan 23:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] If "most UK media" agree that there is "no dispute" whatsoever regarding this "fact," then it should not be hard to find an expert on Cambodia, a historian, or a biographer of Pol Pot to support your claim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was traveling from Bombay to Manila on Pan Am in mid-1981, and intended to stop in Thailand to drive out to the border to nose around. I suspected that the U.S. might be providing support for the KR (the enemy of its enemy, the SRV) and thought it would make a good story, if that appeared to be the case. Unfortunately, I got deathly ill on the plane, no doubt due to my last meal in Poona or Santa Cruz, and was too sick to deplane. I continued on to Hong Kong and flew directly to Manila from there on another carrier, rather than use my free ticket ('round the world for one price) that would have taken me to Tokyo first. I was sick for two weeks in Manila before returning via Guan and Hawai'i to San Francisco. I dropped any interest until years later I met an American nurse who had worked at a border refugee camp and said that she believed that the U.S. was supplying the KR with logistical support at the time of my intended visit. Again, I didn't pursue her claim at all. I really need to get back to work as I just spent an hour on the phone with a reporter and I'm ever further behind. Activist (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ed Herman Shall we try to resolve the dispute here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweig23 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] No. It's not a personal dispute; it's a content dispute, which belongs on the talk page of the article in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Alright, I posted my main points on the page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweig23 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Since I was posting at the bottom of your page, I noticed that you had edited Ed Herman immediately above. Curious, I searched for the page, but it's not under "Ed Herman" and there's no disambiguation, but rather the page can be found under the name under which he authors books, Edward S. Herman. Activist (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Rios Montt Thanks for your comments on this page and our edits. I responded to your latest comments on my Talk page. I hope this helps to amicably resolve the situation. Activist (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Re: Xenophrenic RfC/U I noticed that you had some interaction with User:Xenophrenic on the David Stannard article and Talk page. I've started an RfC/U regarding Xenophrenic's editing habits. Please feel free to participate if you have anything to add about your experiences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] John Tower Hi there, could you please explain your rationale for this edit a bit more? It seems decently sourced. I don't know Vietnam War-era history all that well, but is your objection that the conclusion about the Peace Accords went too far or something else? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was in the middle of a dispute with an editor called “Plumber”, on several different articles, in which I felt he was using unreliable polemics and primary sources in a deceptive manner. My primary concern was his suggestion that Kissinger leaked classified information about the talks to Nixon, which is completely false and not supported by any reliable sources whatsoever. While we eventually reached an amicable compromise, I got carried away on the John Tower article (which he never edited, and used better sources). Tower really was involved in Nixon's efforts; maybe the text I deleted was a bit lacking in neutrality, but I shouldn't have blanked the whole section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Indonesian killings... Hello there, there's been some new editing on this article, particularly, and predictably, around "sexing up" the US/foreign involvement section. Would be nice if you could have a look. Particularly with regards to some of the Jstor sources you used. :) Many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] My personal thought... ...That while you have done many major contributions to various topic, several of those changes are major, and should require a discussion in the article talk page or the project page, otherwise many people could not able to "keep up" with it--Zeraful (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Primary Hello. You seem like an experienced editor. I saw that Boba Fett TBH had been banned and his edits reverted via the Vietnam War article. I asked him on his talk page about using Chomsky, and he said it wasn't a good idea, so I replaced Chomsky in the Wietnam War article. But he also said he used primary sources all the time. Can you confirm that primary sources are never allowed? I thought they weren't, and I'm sure the rules say primary sources are not allowed, but he made it sound like there was some occasions on which it was permissible. I have not been using primary sources, and will not, but can you just confirm that? LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm not an expert. I try not to use them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] South Vietnam Hello I would like you to have look at the South Vietnam page an editor insists on adding the claim that South Vietnam was a "Client state of the United States" in the type of government section. Regards.Stumink (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have also requested admin intervention from Wtmitchell, asking for a revert of that client state status, as well as page-protection due to Hcpunkkid's edit warring. Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure I'll be able to help. My opinion, which is irrelevant, is that Diem was Vietnam's true nationalist hero---whereas the French returned to Indochina at Ho Chi Minh's request and collaborated with the Viet Minh to massacre the Vietnamese nationalists, Diem was so fiercely and indefatigably independent that Kennedy had him killed. North Vietnam was such a client state of the USSR that their every move--from the "land reform" to the invasion of the South--was approved by Moscow in advance (just like with North Korea). But I don't know what RS say about SVN being a "client state" of the US. Academics may be wrong, but while we're on Wikipedia we just have to accept what they say, and besides--there is an element of truth to the idea that SVN was dependent on US aid. The coup against Diem certainly demonstrates American political influence over the country.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] The sources that were added were pretty poor. 3 of the sources were worthless. However a number of sources do refer to it as such. I am sure this would however be a very disputed matter.Stumink (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure it would be, but we would need to find high-quality sources that disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hi TTAAC and Stumink, is having the status section empty a viable idea? See discussion, and background info. I'm so tired of being in the same type of content dispute again and again, once every half year or so something just has to come up...Sorry about that, but anyone can see how i feel about this...Aside, i can't help to notice something below about proposing N.C. to be used as a source, now i'm not fully informed of what's happening there, but from my knowledge of N.C. of his position and works on Vietnam-related political/historical matters, he's definitely not a credible authority/reference. I have a feeling he won't be either for history/politics-related matters for any other foreign country...Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Of course not--Chomsky is just a linguist. He's not an expert or a historian, and he writes not to teach, but to indoctrinate. Chomsky knows just enough about the countries he writes about to sound knowledgeable to people who really don't know anything.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Chomsky We appear to have reached some sort of consensus on Nicaragua; but I still disagree with your unwillingness to acknowledge Noam Chomsky as a legitimate source. Yes, he has outspoken political views, but that does not detract from scholarship; I have searched fairly hard, and have yet to find detailed critiques of his historical writing. And even if he is a linguist by training, he has written approaching fifty books on contemporary political history,most of which are academic works, not rhetorical ones. I would strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with his work before dismissing him as a source of information, especially when we're looking at his synthesis of factual information and not his interpretations of said information. Turning the Tide, for example, is an incredibly well researched book, and it is not really very supportive of "socialist" governments, either.Abhimanyulele (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Chomsky's not a notable expert on Nicaragua, and don't assume too much regarding my familiarity with his work.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I assume nothing; your views make your familiarity clear. Notability is an issue if we are discussing opinions. We're not. We're talking about the facts he presents, and if notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there. Do you have evidence that Chomsky has made factually incorrect statements? and don't say you "know" he's wrong, that carries no weight.Abhimanyulele (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Your comment is so absurd it almost has to be dissected line-by-line: -"Your views make your familiarity clear." Please, as if I didn't go through a Chomskyite phase when I was younger and immature. -"We're talking about the facts he presents" Chomsky is the last place to go for facts. On the rare occasion Chomsky is dealing with facts and not with fantasies, there should be a reliable source that could be used in his place. -"If notability if a criterion you use for your sources of factual information, then there's something wrong there." Notability is an essential Wikipedia policy. Feel free to leave.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] If you wish to stew in your cesspool of rightwing ideology, where facts are not facts unless they support your opinion, your welcome. Like I said, if you really had evidence (not conviction, evidence) that Chomsky was factually incorrect, you (and the many others who share your views) would have produced it. Instead, you sit and insist that he is wrong. That's fine by me.Abhimanyulele (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] If you're not aware of such evidence, haven't looked hard enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] No, this time the burden of proof lies on you. Chomsky writes a book, which I read, with a couple of hundred references, which I look up and find reasonable. I then find that that book has itself been referenced a bunch of times. Based on this, I decide he is a good reference. Then you decide that no, he is making factual errors, his citations are bullshit, and those who cite him are merely subscribing to propaganda. And you refuse to provide evidence, despite my asking several times. What else do I make of this, except a lack of openmindedness?Abhimanyulele (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] I removed Chomsky because he isn't a historian or an expert on Nicaragua. I don't need any more evidence than that. I'd rather not get into political discussions here, but if you really want criticism of Chomsky, start with The Anti-Chomsky Reader and Paul Bogdanor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] You're kidding me, right? I ask for evidence, and you give me a link that among other things labels Hugo Chavez an Anti-semite? Anyhow, forget about it. An unwillingness to look facts in the face is hardly going to result in productive conversation. You don't seem to see the asymmetry here. There are right wing authors cited all over the article, despite outrageous views; why? because they have good syntheses of hard data. But Chomsky's politics gets in the way of people accepting his statistics, too, which is ridiculous. But I guess we must agree to disagree on this one.Abhimanyulele (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Notification WP:ARBEE Due to your support of the use of known genocide deniers as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]